Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

4
Knowledge, Information, and
Household Recycling
.
Examining the Knowledge-Deficit Model
of Behavior Change
P. Wesley Schultz
Education is often seen as the key to changing behavior. Indeed, how can
people engage in environmentally significant behaviors if they do not
know about the impacts of their actions, or about the details of how to
engage in a specific behavior? Recycling and other conservation behaviors are
becoming increasingly important as the harmful effects of human behavior on
the natural environment become more evident. Each year, reports are presented
about the increasing damage that human behavior is having on the natural envi-
ronment ozone holes, deforestation, overpumping of groundwater, and an over-
reliance on oil as an energy source. But is education sufficient to change behav-
ior? This chapter examines the research on the effects of one educational
approach knowledge-based interventions designed to increase residential recy-
cling rates. The knowledge-deficit model for information campaigns is present-
ed, and research on three aspects of the model is summarized. Although the
chapter focuses on a specific behavior (recycling), the basic principles discussed
are believed to generalize to a range of environmentally related activities. Final-
ly, an alternative educational approach focusing on social norms is presented,
and some recommendations for implementing normative education programs are
provided.
Before examining the knowledge-deficit model, it is important to clarify
what I mean by "education." In the context of a social marketing approach,
"educate" is often synonymous with "provide information." In working with
recycling companies and with city and county recycling coordinators, I have
frequently heard the phrase "We need to educate people about ." Indeed, this
same phrase can be found across a range of social marketing programs, and with
regard to a range of behaviors. In essence, the educational activities involve
67

68
KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, AND HOUSEHOLD RECYCLING
disseminating information about the topic or about the behavior, with the goal of
motivating people to act. It is, however, important to point out that this is just
one narrowly conceived approach, and that not all educational efforts are infor-
mation-based (cf. Andrew s et al., this volume, Chapter 10; Ramsey and Hunger-
ford, this volume, Chapter 9~. There is a rich literature on environmental educa-
tion, much of which is experiential or affect-based. What follows is an analysis
of information-based education interventions used to promote recycling.
SOLID WASTE AND RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAMS
The disposal of solid waste is becoming both an environmental and econom-
ic burden. In 1999, the average person in the United States generated 4.6 pounds
of trash each day a figure that was up dramatically from 2.7 pounds per day in
1960 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2000~. Combined, people
in the United States generated 230 million tons of trash in 1999. Of this total,
residential solid waste accounted for an estimated 60 percent, with the remaining
40 percent coming from commercial sources (EPA, 2000.
By far, the bulk of the trash generated in the United States is buried in
landfills. Of the 230 million tons generated in 1999, approximately 72 percent
was buried in landfills, at an estimated disposal cost of around $30 billion each
year a cost figure that is projected to grow substantially in the next few years
(EPA, 1998a, 1998b, 2000~. Lowering the amount of trash buried in landfills has
important economic as well as environmental consequences. Less trash means
lower disposal fees, less strain on the diminishing number of landfills open to
accept waste, and less consumption of raw materials.
The approaches to reducing the amount of solid waste generated by house-
holds in the United States can be classified as either Reduce, Reuse, or Recycle.
The Reduce approach focuses primarily on purchasing for example, purchas-
ing items with minimal packaging or items that can be composted. An article
summarizing the research on "green buying" by Th0gersen can be found in
Chapter 5 of this volume (see also Hormuth, 1999; Mainieri et al., 1997~. Reuse
focuses on repeated uses of purchased items for example, using canvas shop-
ping bags or purchasing beverages in refillable containers. Recycle, the focus of
this chapter, refers to the collection of used items for use in the manufacturing of
new items. Nationally, more than 9,000 curbside recycling programs in the Unit-
ed States serve more than 134 million people, and both numbers are growing
rapidly (EPA, 1998a).
At the city and county levels, when people talk about recycling it is often in
the context of technical issues like the implementation of a new program, chang-
ing to an automated collection system, the distribution of recycling bins, zoning
or siting landfills or transfer stations, and different types of recycling programs
(e.g., commingled, pay-to-throw, or source separated). However, it is important
to point out that recycling is a behavior, and like all human behaviors, recycling

P. WESLEY SCHULTZ
69
is motivated and constrained by the context in which it occurs. The success or
failure of a recycling program hinges on participation by community residents.
Recent reviews of the research on recycling and other environmentally sig-
nificant behaviors have distinguished between personal and situational determi-
nants (Hornik et al., 1995; Schultz et al., 1995~. A personal behavioral predictor
refers to a characteristic that exists within an individual. Examples of personal
predictors include knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, personality, perceived control,
and level of ascribed personal responsibility. Situational predictors are charac-
teristics of the context that are related to the behavior. Examples of situational
predictors include the types of materials collected, the location of collection
bins, and the qualities associated with collection bins (color, shape, labeling).
Recycling programs have become common in communities throughout the
United States and Canada. Within the past 10 years, all 50 U.S. states have
passed laws requiring reductions in the amount of trash sent to landfills. Califor-
nia, like many states, has set a goal of a 50 percent diversion rate that is, 50
percent less trash sent to landfills. In response to these laws, cities and counties
have implemented many types of programs, one of which is curbside recycling.
Although laudable, these diversion goals are difficult to reach, and many com-
munities are struggling to meet diversion mandates. In an effort to encourage
people to recycle, a number of intervention programs have been developed and
implemented. These programs target both personal and situational variables, but
the effectiveness is often questionable. Of the interventions used to promote
recycling, the most common approach is based on knowledge.
KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, AND BEHAVIOR
Recycling coordinators for cities, advisors for technical councils at the coun-
ty level, and directors and other administrators of recycling companies often
believe that low recycling rates (or many other behaviors, for that matter) result
from a lack of knowledge. From this basic assumption, the solution for increas-
ing recycling rates is the distribution of educational materials about recycling.
The basic assumption of this knowledge-deficit theory is that increasing knowl-
edge will translate into a change in behavior. Three testable hypotheses can be
derived from this theory. First, knowledge about recycling will be correlated
with recycling behavior. Second, distributing educational materials containing
information about recycling will lead to an increase in knowledge about recy-
cling. Third, an increase in knowledge about recycling will lead to an increase in
recycling behavior.
Before summarizing the research on these three topics, it is important to
define some terms and to distinguish between different types of knowledge.
Most of the research on knowledge as a predictor of recycling behavior has
focused on procedural knowledge that is, knowledge about the where, when,
and how of recycling. For example, a resident may know that recycling is col-

70
KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, AND HOUSEHOLD RECYCLING
lected on Tuesdays by placing three bins at the curb: one for newspapers, a
second for glass and cans, and a third for plastics. This can be distinguished from
impact knowledge, which refers to an individual's beliefs about the consequenc-
es of recycling. For example, making aluminum from recycled cans requires 95
percent less energy and generates 95 percent less pollution than mining and
processing raw aluminum. This type of knowledge is especially important in the
value-belief-norm theory, where beliefs act with values and norms as joint deter-
minants of behavior (cf. Stern, 2000; Stern et al., 1999; Stern et al., 1993~. A
third type of knowledge is normative knowledge beliefs about the behaviors of
others. We use the term belief to refer to an individual's subjective understand-
ing of the procedure, impact, or normativeness of recycling; knowledge refers to
accurate beliefs. Beliefs may or may not be accurate, and yet, may still predict
recycling behavior.
Does Knowledge Predict Recycling Behavior?
The short answer to this question is "Yes." The research addressing this
issue has focused almost exclusively on procedural knowledge. For example,
knowledge is often measured by asking participants to identify which materials
are or are not recycled in their recycling program and coding the percentage of
items correctly classified. The overwhelming finding from the research is that
knowledge is a strong and consistent predictor of recycling behavior. In general,
the more knowledgeable a person is about which materials are recyclable, and
when and where materials are collected, the more likely that person is to recycle
(De Young, 1989; Gamba and Oskamp, 1994; Lindsay and Strathman, 1997;
Vining and Ebreo,1990~. In a meta-analysis of the correlates of recycling behav-
ior, Hornik et al. (1995) identified 17 studies that examined the relationship
between knowledge about recycling (i.e., procedural knowledge) and recycling
behavior. The aggregate relationship across these studies was r=.54 (N=5,376~.
Among the variables examined in their review, knowledge was the strongest
correlate of recycling.
This finding should not be surprising. Indeed, research on a variety of other
behaviors (e.g., condom use, cigarette smoking, substance use among adoles-
cents, energy conservation) has consistently found knowledge to be a strong
correlate. Illustrative research on the relationship between knowledge and be-
havior can be found in the literature examining Fisher's Information-Motivation-
Behavioral skills (IMB) model (cf. Bryan et al., 2000; Fisher et al., 1994; Fisher
and Fisher, 1996~.
Although encouraging, the strong relationship between knowledge and be-
havior may not be causal. There are three possible causal relationships. The
first, and the one implicitly assumed in the knowledge-deficit model, is that
knowledge causes action. Knowing more about recycling causes a person to
recycle more often. A second possible causal relationship is that action causes

P. WESLEY SCHULTZ
71
knowledge. That is, when a person recycles, he or she learns more about the
behavior. Finally, an unspecified third variable may cause both knowledge and
action. For example, a general interest in community activities may cause the
individual to seek out information about recycling, and also to participate in a
community-sponsored recycling program. Without additional data, the causal
link is unclear.
Does Distributing Information Increase Knowledge About Recycling?
The second assumed connection in the knowledge-deficit model is that dis-
tributing information materials will cause an increase in knowledge. There is a
substantial body of research on the development of persuasive educational mate-
rials, and a thorough review of this literature is beyond the scope of this chapter.
However, chapters 6 and 7 in this volume address this issue (see also Petty and
Wegener, 1998~. Some of the key issues in developing an effective educational
program are the complexity of the information presented, the medium through
which the information is presented (e.g., newspapers, television or radio, printed
brochures, posted signs or prompts), the framing of the message, and the credi-
bility of the source. With these considerations in mind, researchers have been
successful at creating information materials that increase knowledge about recy-
cling (Littlejohn, 1997; Werner et al., 1997~.
Does Changing Knowledge About Recycling Lead to a Change in
Recycling Behavior?
This is the linchpin of the knowledge-deficit model. We have seen that
knowledge correlates with behavior and that a well-designed education cam-
paign can change beliefs and increase knowledge. But does this change in knowl-
edge cause a change in behavior?
To address this question, an experimental study is needed in which house-
holds are randomly assigned to either receive or not to receive educational mate-
rials and subsequent changes in behavior are monitored. In the area of recycling,
several studies have used this approach (cf. Schultz, 1999; Schultz and Tyra,
2000; Werner et al., 1997~. The basic finding from these studies is that although
distributing information materials can increase knowledge, this change in knowl-
edge is associated with only a small, short-term change in behavior. For exam-
ple, Schultz (1999) reported the findings from an experiment that disseminated
information about the specifics of a local curbside recycling program to commu-
nity residents. Residents were given information about the types of materials that
were recyclable, along with information about collection procedures. Results
showed only a small increase in recycling rates and the amount of material
recycled, and no significant change relative to a control condition. In essence,
information was not sufficient to produce a change in behavior.

72
KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, AND HOUSEHOLD RECYCLING
Information Campaigns Are Cheap, but the Effects Are Short Lived
The results from the studies summarized suggest that the effectiveness of
education campaigns to produce durable changes in behavior is dubious. In addi-
tion, changes that have been observed following information interventions to
promote recycling are typically short lived.
So why, in the absence of evidence regarding the effectiveness of informa-
tion-based campaigns, are they still widely used? First, they are cheap. Relative
to other types of interventions, or to altering the recycling program itself, creat-
ing and disseminating educational materials is inexpensive. Schultz (1999) esti-
mated a cost of approximately 3 cents per household to create and disseminate
the materials for an information-based campaign. Second, creating informational
materials is believed to require no special training in psychology or marketing,
and it is a task that can be done by staff members already involved with the
program. If residents simply need to be educated about recycling, then all that is
needed is a list with details about recycling most commonly to be included as
an insert in the trash bill.
The reason that information campaigns often are ineffective is that they
ignore the motives behind behavior. People recycle (or don't recycle) for rea-
sons. A sizable number of studies have examined the reasons that people give for
recycling, with some consistent findings (Gamba and Oskamp, 1994; McCarty
and Shrum, 1994; Vining and Ebreo, 1990; Werner and Makela, l999~. Oskamp
et al. (1998) identified four motivational factors associated with the level of
recycling behavior:
The benefits of recycling (e.g., satisfaction of saving natural resources,
decreasing landfill use, saving energy),
Personal inconvenience (e.g., no space for bins, no time to prepare mate-
rials, hard to move recycling bins to the curb),
External pressure (e.g., friends and neighbors are doing it, pressure from
friends, pressure from family), and
Financial motives (earn money, decrease garbage costs).
Knowledge is not a motive for recycling. However, lack of knowledge can be a
barrier to recycling. Several recent articles have suggested that in developing or
modifying a social program, researchers must consider the barriers for the desired
behavior (see also Gardner and Stem, 1996; McKenzie-Mohr and Smith, l999~. For
example, McKenzie-Mohr (2000) argued that the first step in effective community-
based social marketing is to uncover the barriers to the targeted behavior. These
barriers can be external to the individual (e.g., lack of storage space for recycling
bins) or internal (lack of knowledge about which materials are recyclable). Thus,
lack of knowledge can be a barrier to recycling, and we would predict that an indi-
vidual who knows what, when, and how to recycle would be more likely to do it.

P. WESLEY SCHULTZ
73
When to Use Information
The research reviewed to test the knowledge-deficit model was, without
exception, conducted within existing recycling programs. The findings clearly
indicate that in such programs, disseminating information will not lead to a
change in recycling behavior. However, given McKenzie-Mohr's work on com-
munity-based social marketing, it does seem that disseminating information can
lead to a change in behavior in situations where lack of knowledge is a barrier to
action. Three specific instances emerge in which knowledge may be a barrier to
action. It is important to note that in each of these instances, people are motivat-
ed to act, but fail to do so because they do not know how.
1. New program. At the start of a new program, it is safe to assume that
most people will not know the procedures for recycling. Disseminating
information about the new program is likely to produce substantially
more recycling behavior.
2. Changing an existing program. When an established program is changed,
the change should be accompanied by information. For example, changes
in the days of collection or the type of materials that are recyclable should
be accompanied by information. To minimize the knowledge barrier,
changes should be made sparingly.
3. Complexity of procedures. Programs that require procedures that are com-
plex or difficult to remember should regularly disseminate information.
For example, recycling programs with a long of list of materials that are,
and are not, recyclable should disseminate this information on a regular
basis.
In each of these instances, a lack of knowledge can be a barrier to action, and
disseminating information is likely to produce an increase in recycling behavior.
However, in existing programs where people have a basic understanding of the
program, increasing knowledge will not lead to a change in behavior.
NORMATIVE EDUCATION: AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
The bulk of the research on knowledge about recycling and educational
interventions to promote recycling has focused on increasing procedural knowl-
edge. Given the limited effectiveness of education aimed at increasing procedur-
al knowledge, it is useful to examine the research on normative knowledge an
understanding of the behaviors of others. In essence, these beliefs are perceived
social norms. Cialdini and colleagues (1990) have distinguished between de-
scriptive and injunctive social norms. Descriptive social norms are beliefs about
what other people are doing what Kallgren and colleagues (2000) refer to as
norms of is. Injunctive social norms, in contrast, are beliefs about what other

74
KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, AND HOUSEHOLD RECYCLING
people think should be done norms of ought. Social norms can be distin-
guished from personal norms, which are feelings of obligation to act in a partic-
ular manner in specific situations. Schwartz and Fleishman (1978:307) define
personal norms as "self-expectations for behavior backed by the anticipation of
self-enhancement or [selfj-deprecation." Personal norms differ from social
norms in that they refer to internalized self-expectations, whereas social norms
refer to external perceptions about the appropriateness of behaviors. The focus
here is on normative beliefs that an individual holds about the behavior of others.
Our interest is in normative beliefs, regardless of the accuracy of these beliefs.
Normative Beliefs Predict Behavior
There is considerable evidence, from a number of lines of psychological re-
search, that normative beliefs (both descriptive and injunctive) are good predictors
of behavior. A number of studies focused on recycling have reported a strong,
positive relationship between normative beliefs and recycling behavior. In these
studies, normative beliefs often are measured by asking about perceptions of social
pressure to recycle for example, from friends, family, or neighbors. These are
perceptions of injunctive social norms that is, they are an individual's belief that
others think he or she should be recycling. In addition, several studies have asked
residents about their perceptions of the frequency with which other people recycle.
For example, studies may ask questions like, "How often do your neighbors put
recyclables at the curb to be collected?" In their meta-analysis of recycling studies,
Hornik et al. (1995) found an aggregate correlation of r=.43 (N=2,828) between
perceptions of social influence and recycling behavior.
Research showing a positive association between normative beliefs and
many different behaviors also can be found among studies utilizing the Theory
of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behavior. The Theory of Planned
Behavior proposes that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control predict
behavioral intentions, which in turn lead to behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein and
Ajzen, 1975; Fishbein et al., 1994~. Subjective norms refer to a person's percep-
tions of the social pressure to perform a behavior; they are an individual's per-
ceptions of how other people or groups think he or she should act. Subjective
norms have been found to be strong predictors of a variety of behaviors (Ajzen,
1991~. A sampling of some of these research areas includes studies using subjec-
tive norms as predictors of condom use (Baker et al., 1996; Richardson et al.,
1997), substance use among adolescents (Morrison et al., 1996), intentions to
commit driving violations (Parker et al., 1992), compliance with lithium treat-
ment among people with bipolar affective disorder (Cochran and Gitlin, 1988),
intentions to wear seatbelts (Thuen and Rise, 1994), and occupational choice
among women (Greenstein et al., 1979~.
Schultz and Tyra (2000) found that descriptive normative beliefs were strong
predictors of recycling behavior, and that normative beliefs about people closer

P. WESLEY SCHULTZ
75
to self were stronger predictors than beliefs about those who were more socially
distant. For example, beliefs about the frequency of recycling by neighbors cor-
related r=.44 with recycling behavior; beliefs about recycling by "people in your
neighborhood" correlated r=.31 with recycling behavior; and beliefs about recy-
cling rates across the city correlated r=.17 with behavior.
The research just summarized clearly indicates that normative beliefs, both
descriptive and injunctive, are predictive of a variety of behaviors. But do nor-
mative beliefs cause behavior? Guerra et al. (1995) suggest that commonly used
rules may become injunctive simply because they are shared by many people.
Although this assertion may hold for some behaviors, there are quite a few
instances in which this would not apply for instance, where an individual per-
ceives that a behavior is desired but does not perceive that others are doing it, or
in situations where the behavior is not directly observable by other community
members. In these situations, normative beliefs would not predict behavior.
Some of these situations can be characterized as commons dilemmas (Hardin,
1968), where a behavior is prescribed (both individually and collectively), but
not commonly observed.
Recycling is a behavior that benefits the collective, with few direct rewards
for the individual (excluding cash redemption centers), and recycling has a cost
to the individual in terms of convenience, sorting, and storage. The behavior is
socially accepted, and people generally believe they should recycle. But if no
one else is doing it, why should I? One of the consistent findings from research
on the commons dilemma is that communication can lead individuals to act in
the interest of the group (Dawes et al., 1990; Schelling, 1966~. Individuals are
considerably more likely to reduce their use of the common when they believe
that others who share access to the common also will limit their use. For exam-
ple, I am much more likely to conserve energy if I believe my neighbor is also
making an effort to conserve energy. Thus, disseminating information about the
behavior of others (i.e., descriptive norms) is a mechanism for communication
and an important way to overcome the commons dilemma.
Does Changing Normative Beliefs Cause a Change in Behavior?
The data just described suggest that normative beliefs can predict behavior.
But what about instances in which an individual does not already possess injunc-
tive or descriptive normative beliefs regarding a behavior, or instances where a
descriptive belief is too low (i.e., hardly anyone in my community recycles) or
too high (nearly everyone in my school smokes marijuana)? To what extent does
changing a normative belief lead to a change in behavior? The opposite sequence
seems possible, if not likely that is, that many descriptive social norms are
created to justify or validate behavior. For example, an individual may come to
believe that a behavior (e.g., smoking, recycling, drug use, wearing seatbelts) is
more common than it really is only after engaging in the behavior. Likewise, one

76
KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, AND HOUSEHOLD RECYCLING
may come to believe that a behavior (e.g., cheating on an exam, littering, run-
ning a red light) is more reprehensible after not engaging in it. Such an effect
may result from a "false consensus," wherein we tend to believe that others share
our views (Fabrigar and Krosnick, 1995; Suls et al., 1988~. One way to assess the
causal link is to change normative beliefs experimentally and then to observe
any subsequent change in behavior.
Only a few studies have attempted to manipulate normative beliefs experi-
mentally. One such study came from a program to reduce and prevent adolescent
drug use. Donaldson and his colleagues (Donaldson et al., 1994; Donaldson et
al., 1995) reported a series of studies on a normative education intervention
designed to change adolescents' beliefs about the prevalence of substance use by
their peers. Over a period of five sessions, the program presented information
about alcohol and drug use that established a conservative normative atmosphere
in the school regarding substance use. Results from the longitudinal study showed
that the effectiveness of an adolescent drug use prevention program was mediated
largely by changes in beliefs about the prevalence and acceptability of substance
use among peers.
Schultz (1999) reported a study on the effects of a normative intervention
within a community curbside recycling program. Study participants were com-
munity residents in a large metropolitan suburb. Approximately 120 houses were
systematically assigned to each of five experimental conditions: individual nor-
mative feedback (targeting injunctive social norms), group normative feedback
(targeting descriptive social norms), information, plea only, and control. The
results showed that, overall, households in the injunctive norm condition recy-
cled significantly more often and more material per week during a 4-week fol-
lowup period than they did during the baseline period. For the descriptive norm
condition, results showed a similar significant increase in the frequency of par-
ticipation and in the amount of material recycled. The information, plea-only,
and control conditions showed no significant change across time.
Practical Approaches for Making Recycling Normative
The research summarized shows that normative beliefs are causally linked
with behavior. That is, normative beliefs predict behavior, and changing norma-
tive beliefs can cause a change in behavior. A remaining question is: how do we
change normative beliefs? I offer two suggestions here.
Block leaders. A number of studies have examined the effectiveness of neigh-
borhood leaders at promoting recycling. Within this approach, communities are
divided into small residential areas, and volunteers are recruited from each area
to serve as a block leader. These leaders are asked to take responsibility for the
recycling within their neighborhood, to recycle diligently, and to encourage
neighbors to recycle. Studies on the effects of block leader programs indicate

P. WESLEY SCHULTZ
77
that they have a direct effect on normative beliefs (particularly injunctive norma-
tive beliefs, but descriptive norms as well). In addition, block leader programs
have been very successful at producing sustained increases in recycling behavior
(Burn, 1991; Hopper and Nielsen, 1991; Shrum et al., 1994~.
Disseminating data on community recycling rates. A second approach to mak-
ing recycling normative is through the dissemination of recycling information to
residents. This can occur through community newsletters, newspaper articles,
public service announcements, or inserts in the recycling or trash bill. Note that
this approach is most effective in areas where there is a low descriptive norm,
but many people are actually recycling. That is, the disseminated normative
information must be higher than the overall normative belief among residents.
Publishing a statistic that "50 percent of residents in San Marcos recycle regular-
ly" will only lead to an increase in recycling if the existing normative belief
among residents is that fewer than 50 percent recycle regularly. Some types of
normative information that can be distributed include percentages of people who
recycle each week, the percentage of solid waste that is recycled by residents, or
the number of recycling bins placed at the curb by residents each week.
In all cases, it is important to keep the normative information specific to the
level of the individual, providing a standard against which an individual can
compare his or her behavior. For example, providing information about the recy-
cling rates across the city, or about the citywide diversion rate, will be unlikely
to change behavior. This type of information is not connected with a specific
behavior, and does not provide a clear standard against which a person can
compare his or her behavior. Instead, we advocate targeting specific behaviors
like "place recyclables at the curb to be collected" or "use designated bins for
greenwaste." Likewise, we advocate using comparison groups that are closer to
the individual with statements like "people in your community" or "your neigh-
bors" rather than broader comparisons at the city, county, or even state levels.
The Limits of Normative Intervention
The previous discussion suggests that, unlike knowledge, normative beliefs
can be a powerful motive for action. However, it is important to point out that
normative beliefs are more likely to lead to behavior under a specified set of
conditions.
A large body of social psychological research on conformity suggests that
beliefs about the behavior of others are more likely to influence our own actions
under a specific set of conditions. One of the most important considerations is
whether the behavior is publicly observable. Behaviors that are more observable
are more likely to be affected by changes in normative beliefs. Classic social
psychological studies of conformity have shown that people conform more when

78
KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION, AND HOUSEHOLD RECYCLING
they respond publicly (in front of others) than when they respond privately (Asch,
1946, 1955~. The observability of a behavior interacts with normative beliefs in
two ways. First, behaviors that are observable can be monitored by others. In
situations where there is an injunctive normative belief for the behavior (e.g.,
people in my community think I should recycle), this monitoring function is
likely to lead to an increased compliance with the norm. If, on the other hand, the
behavior is not publicly observable (for example, household energy conserva-
tion, backyard comporting, or proper disposal of hazardous household waste),
then promoting a normative belief is less likely to change behavior.
A second aspect of the observability of a behavior has to do with the devel-
opment of descriptive normative beliefs. Behaviors that are publicly observable
reinforce (or undermine) existing descriptive normative beliefs. When we can
monitor the behavior of others, their actions will directly affect our normative
beliefs. For example, observing that my neighbors rarely put recyclables at the
curb to be collected is likely to produce a low descriptive norm. Even if present-
ed with information that a higher percentage of people in my community recy-
cle, unless I observe my neighbors doing it, I am unlikely to believe the message
or change my normative belief. On the other hand, if my neighbors regularly put
a great deal of recyclables at the curb each week, my observations of their be-
havior will lead to a high descriptive norm.
Although the observability of a behavior is one of the more powerful condi-
tions under which normative beliefs will affect behavior, other aspects of the
situation can also play important roles. Variables like perceived similarity with
others in the community, status of people who are engaging in the behavior,
prior commitment to act in a particular manner, size of the group, and cohesion
of the group are all variables that can affect the effectiveness of a normative
intervention.
Overall, social psychological research on conformity suggests that norma-
tive social influence works best with behaviors that are publicly observable-
like curbside recycling. Other behaviors that are less observable, like energy
consumption or proper disposal of hazardous household waste, may be less af-
fected by normative social influence.
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter has synthesized the research findings regarding knowledge and
the effectiveness of certain educational interventions intended to promote recycling.
We distinguished between procedural knowledge, impact knowledge, and nor-
mative knowledge. The results from a variety of studies suggest that knowledge
about recycling is a strong correlate of recycling behavior. This conclusion is
qualified by the concept that knowledge does not provide a motive for behavior,
but instead it is a lack of knowledge that is a barrier to behavior. Research also
demonstrates that it is possible to increase knowledge about a behavior (proce-

P. WESLEY SCHULTZ
79
aural or normative) by disseminating information. However, the findings show
that although information can lead to an increase in knowledge, its effect on
behavior tends to be small and short term. An alternative to procedural informa-
tion is to distribute normative information to residents. Like procedural knowl-
edge, normative beliefs are strong predictors of behavior, and they can be
changed through the use of education. However, unlike procedural knowledge,
normative beliefs provide a motive for behavior, and changing normative beliefs
can cause a change in behavior.
The data used to support these conclusions were drawn primarily from
the literature on recycling. However, I believe that the findings apply to a range
of other human behaviors. Previous research in other areas of applied psycholo-
gy (particularly health psychology) has found similar results, and the findings
would seem to generalize to many of the behaviors addressed in this volume:
energy conservation, "green" buying, public health communication, household
disaster preparedness, pollution prevention, and more general environmental ed-
ucation. Across these areas, the basic argument outlined in this chapter would
apply: Increasing knowledge does not translate into a change in behavior.
NOTE
1 Industrial and transportation-related wastes are not included in these statistics.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I.
1991 The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses 50: 179-211.
Asch, S.E.
1946 Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
41 :258-290.
1955 Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American (November):31-55.
Bryan, A., J. Fisher, W. Fisher, and D. Murray
2000 Understanding condom use among heroin addicts in methadone maintenance using the
Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills Model. Substance Use and Misuse 35:451-
471.
Burn, S.
1991 Social psychology and the stimulation of recycling behaviors: The block leader ap-
proach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21:611-629.
Cialdini, R.B., R.R. Reno, and C.A. Kallgren
1990 A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering
in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58:1015-1026.
Cochran, S.D., and M.J. Gitlin
1988 Attitudinal correlates of lithium compliance in bipolar affective disorders. Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease 176:457-464.
Dawes, R.M., A.J.C. van de Kragt, and J.M. Orbell
1990 Cooperation for the benefit of us Not me, or my conscience. In Beyond Self-interest,
J.J. Mansbridge, ea., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Many people believe that environmental regulation has passed a point of diminishing returns: the quick fixes have been achieved and the main sources of pollution are shifting from large "point sources" to more diffuse sources that are more difficult and expensive to regulate. The political climate has also changed in the United States since the 1970s in ways that provide impetus to seek alternatives to regulation. This book examines the potential of some of these "new tools" that emphasize education, information, and voluntary measures. Contributors summarize what we know about the effectiveness of these tools, both individually and in combination with regulatory and economic policy instruments. They also extract practical lessons from this knowledge and consider what is needed to make these tools more effective. The book will be of interest to environmental policy practitioners and to researchers and students concerned with applying social and behavioral sciences knowledge to improve environmental quality.

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.